W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-rdf-in-xhtml-tf@w3.org > August 2007

Re: My no-longer pseudo code, the way I understand it:-)

From: Ivan Herman <ivan@w3.org>
Date: Sat, 11 Aug 2007 09:22:25 +0200
Message-ID: <46BD63B1.8020500@w3.org>
To: Ben Adida <ben@adida.net>
CC: public-rdf-in-xhtml-tf@w3.org
Hm. Do you mean to say that XHTML does not understand xml:base at all? I
was wrong there if that is true...

I am not sure what this means for us. Does it mean that xml:base is once
and for all banned from RDFa, ie, we should use the top URI as a base
and that is it?

I see your point on the discrepancy of HTML vs. RDFa in that aspect, I
must admit, though it is a real pity...


Ben Adida wrote:
> Ivan,
> Great stuff with the pyRDFa implementation. More implementations and
> more feedback on tests is just great.
> I have one problem: I'm not sure we agreed that xml:base would be taken
> into account here. I can't seem to find any resolution or spec that says
> that it should be taken into account.
> The main issue with using xml:base is that it obviously does not affect
> @href, since the HTML specification doesn't take xml:base into account.
> In other words, HEAD/BASE/@href in HTML *should* affect @href, @about,
> and other relative URIs, but I don't see the argument for supporting
> xml:base without causing all sorts of havoc.
> -Ben


Ivan Herman, W3C Semantic Web Activity Lead
Home: http://www.w3.org/People/Ivan/
PGP Key: http://www.ivan-herman.net/pgpkey.html
FOAF: http://www.ivan-herman.net/foaf.rdf

Received on Saturday, 11 August 2007 07:22:26 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 17:01:51 UTC